Disney to Begin Charging to Park at Resorts if You're an Offsite Guest

[halfpintpeggy]

I feel that Disney has a right to set the rules at their own resorts. If that means charging guests who are not staying at that particular resort to park there, then so be it! Offsite guests have the option of parking in any of the theme park lots and then taking Disney transportation to the resort at which they have an ADR. People staying at the resorts and convention/meeting attendees are spending thousands of dollars at the resort. They should be able to park their vehicles there, if they have one.[/

Like it or not, the vast majority of visitors to WDW are off site guests. We happen to do on & off site visits. Frequently, people staying off site come to dine & shop at the resorts rather than hitting the theme parks. Therefore, your idea of parking at a (paid) theme park lot & then taking Disney transportation to a resort in order to spend $$$ does not make sense. Disney would be biting the hand that feeds them so to speak if they penalized people for spending money at their restaurants and shops. Gimme a break.

 

[halfpintpeggy]

Not sure why that entire response is in the blue "quote" box.

 

[halfpintpeggy]

Why not? If I go to a football game, I'll pay hundreds in tickets and still pay for parking? If you have theme park tickets but are a day guest, you've spent hundreds in tickets and will still pay for parking? If I go to a Broadway show I'll pay hundreds for the ticket and pay for parking. This is economics - Disney has too little supply for their parking spaces at hotels and too much demand. To change the supply demand curve, you change either how much you have of something or how much it costs. Disney is choosing not to add more parking spaces - surface lots are expensive and poor environmental choices - and ramps are really expensive. So they need to lower demand. The way to do that is with price. And they have the ability to chose whom to apply that price lever to - i.e. not guests of that resort (at this point in time).

Yes, if I attend a sporting event, concert, theme park, etc. I have no issue paying for parking. However, I would not pay for parking in order to drop a ton of $$$ at a WDW resort restaurant. Period.

 

[Minniesgal]

Off site guests are NOT "legitimate visitors" to the theme park resorts, unless they are there for "legitimate" reasons...
Sorry...

Disagree with this , Disney resorts are open to all to visit, shop wander and eat QS.

but free parking shouldnt be provided to all in my opinion

 

[disneysteve]

We stay for weeks in the area and like to go to the resorts to dine. Sometimes we just eat at quick service. We will probably not eat on Disney property if we had to pay for parking at the resorts. We used to eat at Citywalk restaurants all the time but have not been back since they started charging for parking.

One system that might work is to have free parking for the first 3 hours then charge a lot for over 3 hours if not staying at the resort. I think everyone would win with a system like this.

I think this makes sense. Park free for a certain amount of time and then charge after that. Also, I think counter service restaurants should be able to validate parking just like table service. We often go to a Disney resort to eat, but only counter service. We also go to shop. I'm not sure we would keep doing that if it cost us $20 each time.

I haven't read the entire thread but have they said anything about AP holders? We don't pay to park at the theme parks. Would we have to pay to park at a hotel?

 

[Marionnette]

Like it or not, the vast majority of visitors to WDW are off site guests. We happen to do on & off site visits. Frequently, people staying off site come to dine & shop at the resorts rather than hitting the theme parks. Therefore, your idea of parking at a (paid) theme park lot & then taking Disney transportation to a resort in order to spend $$$ does not make sense. Disney would be biting the hand that feeds them so to speak if they penalized people for spending money at their restaurants and shops. Gimme a break.

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I feel that the person who spent thousands to stay at the resort has a greater right to that parking spot than the person who chose to stay offsite and will spend -maybe- a few hundred at the resort. Apparently, Disney PTB agree with me. Parking at some resorts is a huge problem.

Charge the non-resort guests to park there and charge enough to discourage the practice of using the MK and Epcot resort lots like a premium (and free) theme park lot. Refund the charge when the visitor shows a receipt for more than a cup of coffee and leaves within the 3-hour limit.

 

[kristenrice]

I think a fair solution would be for the resorts to "reserve" a parking area for their guests who have vehicles (and therefore parking passes) and then any leftover spots can go to other visitors until the lot is at capacity. This way, those paying to stay at the resort will have a parking space and those who are there to visit will be the ones who have to seek out a spot. Surely Disney knows how many people need parking passes so it shouldn't be too difficult to know how many spaces a lot needs for its guests on any given day.

 

[disneysteve]

Charge the non-resort guests to park there and charge enough to discourage the practice of using the MK and Epcot resort lots like a premium (and free) theme park lot. Refund the charge when the visitor shows a receipt for more than a cup of coffee and leaves within the 3-hour limit.

I totally agree that Disney should do something to discourage people from abusing free parking at the resorts in order to avoid paying for theme park parking.

I also think they need to do it in a way that doesn't turn away people coming to the resorts for legitimate purposes.

 

[Marionnette]

I totally agree that Disney should do something to discourage people from abusing free parking at the resorts in order to avoid paying for theme park parking.

I also think they need to do it in a way that doesn't turn away people coming to the resorts for legitimate purposes.

The problem arises when you place the onus on the guard at the gate to determine who has a "legitimate" reason to be there. People who come for the purpose of taking in the atmosphere and grabbing a drink in one of the lounges are there for a legitimate reason, but there's no way to verify that.

Perhaps charging the visitor a large parking fee and then issuing a "resort credit" in the same amount would work. It discourages someone who just wants to park there in order to avoid the theme park lot fees or to have premium access to the parks from their car, but it doesn't penalize someone who is there to spend money anyway. But again, the visitor would still need to leave within 3 hours, otherwise there are still people who would use the resort lot to park all day after their breakfast ADR.

 

[disneysteve]

The problem arises when you place the onus on the guard at the gate to determine who has a "legitimate" reason to be there.

I agree. Forget the guard. Make it like any public parking lot. You pull in and get a ticket. The first 3 hours (or whatever time they decide) are free. After that, it's $5/hour with a maximum of $25. That way, people coming for lunch or drinks don't pay, or pay modestly. People spending the day at a theme park could end up paying more than if they had just parked at the park itself.

 

[Marionnette]

I think a fair solution would be for the resorts to "reserve" a parking area for their guests who have vehicles (and therefore parking passes) and then any leftover spots can go to other visitors until the lot is at capacity. This way, those paying to stay at the resort will have a parking space and those who are there to visit will be the ones who have to seek out a spot. Surely Disney knows how many people need parking passes so it shouldn't be too difficult to know how many spaces a lot needs for its guests on any given day.

GF already does this, in a way. Resort guests are directed to the parking lot behind the DVC resorts. Visitors are directed to park in the convention lot, which is a considerable hike from the hotel entrance. It has helped to alleviate the parking problem there by some degree. However, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, parking at YC and BWI is still a problem, with resort guests being directed to park their vehicles in overflow lots when the main lots are full of visitors who come for "legitimate" reasons and then stay to see the fireworks or take a quick run into Epcot for F&W.

 

[crisi]

Yes, if I attend a sporting event, concert, theme park, etc. I have no issue paying for parking. However, I would not pay for parking in order to drop a ton of $$$ at a WDW resort restaurant. Period.

And my point is that Disney probably won't miss you.

We do a lot of resort dining. Like every night of vacation we dine at a resort - food is usually better than the park restaurants and we are food snobs. With the exception of Citricos, Saana and V&As, I think we've been to every single resort restaurant at Disney (oh, we haven't been to whatever is now in the Spoodles spot). Those ADRs need to be booked in advance, like all other Disney dining. Guest services gets a lot of complaints that open spots are not held for resort guests - first time guests discover they can't even get a meal at their own hotel. Walkups are frequently turned away.

As I've said, where Disney has issues, its on the supply side, not the demand side. They have too little supply for the demand - for possibly everything now except hotel rooms almost year round. (And there are still a few walk on attractions - capacity for the Tiki Birds continues to meet demand). You make Fastpass reservations months in advance. Getting a picture with Mickey or the Princesses involves a huge line, and they don't have enough tables for everyone who wants to eat in a sit down restaurant to do so. They don't have a lot of room for expansion in Orlando, so they'll need to manage demand. (And if you don't understand, somewhere out on the internet there is (or was) a buildable land map for WDW - most of what isn't built on can't be built on - environment impact or the land isn't stable enough - there are a few remaining plots, but not much). Resort restaurants and resort parking both have the same supply side issue as the rest of Disney.

The other issue is that Disney would far rather have onsite guests than day guests. Onsite guests (particularly those without a car), tend to eat all their meals at Disney, don't tend to visit Universal or SeaWorld for a day or two of their vacation. Plus, onsite guests (except DVC members) are paying overinflated hotel room prices with huge margins. So if they encourage people to book hotel rooms, that's good. Even better if you discourage them from having a car - then its really hard for them to give Universal money (DVC gives them a heck of a lot of high margin revenue quickly rather than high margin revenue over a long time - its a different model).

Note that I'm not saying this is "fair" or "right" - but that Disney is first and foremost a business with a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. That means that they will maximize profit. An offsite guest is simply less profitable than an onsite guest. (And a Value guest less profitable than a Deluxe guest if you want to see where this can lead should Disney need to manage demand in excess of this step.)

 

[crisi]

GF already does this, in a way. Resort guests are directed to the parking lot behind the DVC resorts. Visitors are directed to park in the convention lot, which is a considerable hike from the hotel entrance. It has helped to alleviate the parking problem there by some degree. However, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, parking at YC and BWI is still a problem, with resort guests being directed to park their vehicles in overflow lots when the main lots are full of visitors who come for "legitimate" reasons and then stay to see the fireworks or take a quick run into Epcot for F&W.

Did BW used to do this as well? Visitors were supposed to park somewhere over by the Hess station? But they didn't, because Disney didn't bother to police it and once you are in, you can park anywhere (except the valet lot). Plus - the visitor lot was often full of Inn/Villa guests who had to park back there because there wasn't guest parking.

 

[seashoreCM]

Here is how to do it, and Disney has the technology.

Charge a premium parking fee to enter the lot, guests staying at that specific resort are exempt.

If the guest can prove he was in the resort all the while, or drives out within 3 hours of parking, he gets a full or partial refund depending on how much Disney wanted to ultimately charge

There would be Magic Band tap points or employee style time clocks here and there within the resort to re-up the parking privilege at any time within 3 hours for another 3 hours from that moment. A receipt with the time on it from a store or restaurant would also count as a re-up. (Re-upping may be required within certain specific time periods such as during Illuminations for Epcot area resorts.)

The various time stampings would be reconciled at the front desk when the guest is ready to leave, and a qualifying guest would get a replacement voucher to give to the guard on the way out for a parking refund. Even this last step could be automated by inserting the voucher into a machine at the exit lane of the guard station.

 

[supersnoop]

Not sure why that entire response is in the blue "quote" box.

Because you're broke the end quote tag.

 

[crisi]

Here is how to do it, and Disney has the technology.

Technologically, not a problem. But doing it requires an investment in time and resources. Is this something Disney wants their IT group to prioritize? Is this something they want to spend labor and equipment dollars on at all?

Honestly, far easier and cheaper to have people use their Magic Bands to see if you are onsite or offsite. If you are offsite - or don't have your Magic Band, swipe your credit card and charge you a flat fee on entry. Don't bother with validation logic for purchases and equipment that needs to manage time at the exit.

IMHO, Disney IT has bigger fish to fry.

 

[seashoreCM]

In order to inhibit parking at resorts while going to the parks, the resort parking fee has to be greater than the park parking fee.

 

[seashoreCM]

deleted ...................................

 

[Marionnette]

In order to inhibit parking at resorts while going to the parks, the resort parking fee has to be greater than the park parking fee.

I would amend that to say "significantly higher" than the theme park lot fees. Of course, it would also necessitate raising the price of valet parking to prevent people from just using that service to park all day at the resorts.

 

[crisi]

In order to inhibit parking at resorts while going to the parks, the resort parking fee has to be greater than the park parking fee.

And here is the issue with validation....

The parking fee at the parks is $20 - no validation. You pay (unless you have a perk).

A family is likely to need to eat or buy souvenirs anyway. "Why don't we pop into Epcot to see Illuminations, and swing by the resort store at the Boardwalk to get a WDW Sweatshirt on the way out? Then they will validate our parking - and we were going to buy the sweatshirt anyway."